Julian Assange loses extradition battle over sexual assault complaint

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lost a court battle to prevent his …

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has lost a court battle to prevent his extradition from the United Kingdom to Sweden to face questioning over sexual assault complaints, news outlets are reporting today.

Assange is accused of sexually assaulting two women in Sweden in August 2010, and though he has not been charged with a crime, prosecutors want to question him regarding the allegations. Assange attempted to stay in the UK, but appeals court judges rejected his arguments that it would be “unfair to send him to a country where the language and legal system are alien to him.” However, another hearing will be held this month to determine whether Assange, who is under house arrest, may appeal again. Assange’s extradition was previously ordered by a British court in February, but he quickly appealed that ruling.

"I have not been charged with any crime in any country," Assange said on the steps of the High Court in London, according to CNN. "Despite this, the European arrest warrant is so restrictive that it prevents UK courts from considering the facts of a case, as judges have made clear here today." A website set up on Assange’s behalf is seeking donations for his cause, and has posted a copy of the court judgment against him. The Guardian reports that in order to appeal again, “Assange must persuade the judges there is a wider issue of ‘public importance’ at stake in the latest decision.” If successful, the extradition case could go in front of the United Kingdom’s supreme court.

117 Reader Comments

It's disappointing that he is being extradited without being charged with a crime. At least the case has drawn enough attention that my home country will have a much more difficult time getting him out of Sweden.

It's disappointing that he is being extradited without being charged with a crime. At least the case has drawn enough attention that my home country will have a much more difficult time getting him out of Sweden.

It does seem like you shouldn't be able to be extradited without being charged... Although he seems like a scumbag.

Sweden has a well respected legal system, and the extradition is legal (i.e. apparently you needn't be facing charges to be extradited) so I don't really see how or why he should be exempt from the process.

It's disappointing that he is being extradited without being charged with a crime. At least the case has drawn enough attention that my home country will have a much more difficult time getting him out of Sweden.

This is the normal procedure in cases like this; he is suspected of of a crime in Sweden, and thus will be extradited. When he was in Sweden he was repeatedly asked, through his lawyer, about being questioned but he refused repeatedly to talk to the police, and then went to England. After that, the extradition order was sent, and since England and Sweden both consider the other country's justice system to be reasonably fair, the actual extradition was always a given.

If he will actually be sentenced, or even brought before the court, is still up in the air. Of course the prosecutor could try to setup a trial even before talking to Assange, but that would be very strange and definitely not fair.

Personally I think this has been a long unnecessary process. If he had talked with the prosecutor when in Sweden, all of this could have been avoided. Now, since there is an ongoing investigation in which he is a suspect, and he refused to talk before leaving the country, extradition was essentially the only thing left.

"Sweden has a well respected legal system, and the extradition is legal (i.e. apparently you needn't be facing charges to be extradited) so I don't really see how or why he should be exempt from the process."

Because it's a sham trial?!? He's going to be extradited to the US or sent to club Gitmo for embarrassing the Oligarch. Come on, this isn't even opaque, he's be persecuted not prosecuted and the whole world knows it.

"Sweden has a well respected legal system, and the extradition is legal (i.e. apparently you needn't be facing charges to be extradited) so I don't really see how or why he should be exempt from the process."

Because it's a sham trial?!? He's going to be extradited to the US or sent to club Gitmo for embarrassing the Oligarch. Come on, this isn't even opaque, he's be persecuted not prosecuted and the whole world knows it.

So I guess you could care less if he actually sexually assaulted women or not....

"Sweden has a well respected legal system, and the extradition is legal (i.e. apparently you needn't be facing charges to be extradited) so I don't really see how or why he should be exempt from the process."

Because it's a sham trial?!? He's going to be extradited to the US or sent to club Gitmo for embarrassing the Oligarch. Come on, this isn't even opaque, he's be persecuted not prosecuted and the whole world knows it.

So I guess you could care less if he actually sexually assaulted women or not....

Catatafish didn't do bass-to-mouth. That was just a baseless rumor exaggerated by that underage salmon.

"Sweden has a well respected legal system, and the extradition is legal (i.e. apparently you needn't be facing charges to be extradited) so I don't really see how or why he should be exempt from the process."

Because it's a sham trial?!? He's going to be extradited to the US or sent to club Gitmo for embarrassing the Oligarch. Come on, this isn't even opaque, he's be persecuted not prosecuted and the whole world knows it.

There are no charges or extradition requests from the US for him. So what will you say when none of that happens because he's not a US citizen and did not break any US laws? Will you then admit that perhaps he engaged in some questionable behaviour and that the rights of the females involved as as important as his own?

"Sweden has a well respected legal system, and the extradition is legal (i.e. apparently you needn't be facing charges to be extradited) so I don't really see how or why he should be exempt from the process."

Because it's a sham trial?!? He's going to be extradited to the US or sent to club Gitmo for embarrassing the Oligarch. Come on, this isn't even opaque, he's be persecuted not prosecuted and the whole world knows it.

So I guess you could care less if he actually sexually assaulted women or not....

All that matter is to make him pay. The charges might be bogus but its beside the point.

So I guess you could care less if he actually sexually assaulted women or not....

He didn't

That is what I am inclined to believe. When the allegations first surfaced, there were a few websites that did some background checks on the two women. They apparently knew each other beforehand, and one has connections to a CIA-funded terrorist cell.

This isn't the article that I originally found, but it hits on the details that I recall.

Shit, if she's connected to the CIA, they probably know all about my childhood and what costume I wore at her latest Halloween party. I'm screwed, they probably think I'm a terrorist since I once said on Facebook that I think the US fucked up with Iraq.

I'm totally going to Gitmo.

(You want some tinfoil hats, guys? I can get you some if you want them. It seems you really need them.)

Shit, if she's connected to the CIA, they probably know all about my childhood and what costume I wore at her latest Halloween party. I'm screwed, they probably think I'm a terrorist since I once said on Facebook that I think the US fucked up with Iraq.

I'm totally going to Gitmo.

(You want some tinfoil hats, guys? I can get you some if you want them. It seems you really need them.)

So I guess you could care less if he actually sexually assaulted women or not....

He didn't

On what do you base that? And why should he simply be taken at his word on this, as opposed to any other individual?

Shrug. Guilty until proven innocent.

How would this compare with that? He is being extradited so he can face his charges and have guilt determined. That is the exact opposite of guilty until proven innocent.

I acknowledge he may be innocent. I do not know the girls in question, I was not present for the events in question. I do not know him. What I do know is that a person is required by law and society to face charges when they are leveled against them.

What I don't understand is why Swedish investigators don't just question him in the UK. You could throw a rock from the UK to Sweden. It's like an hour and a half by plane. They could travel to the UK, question him, and be back before dinner! I obviously don't know if he is guilty or innocent, but he hasn't been charged with a crime.

Why is it necessary to extradite him to question him?

I know there are lots of conspiracy theories about the US wanting him and it being easier to extradite from Sweden, etc., etc. What I can't find from reading the various news articles is the "official" justification for extradition. Anyone?

So I guess you could care less if he actually sexually assaulted women or not....

He didn't

That is what I am inclined to believe. When the allegations first surfaced, there were a few websites that did some background checks on the two women. They apparently knew each other beforehand, and one has connections to a CIA-funded terrorist cell.

This isn't the article that I originally found, but it hits on the details that I recall.

You're... absolutely right. The fact that one of the women supports the Ladies in White, a group formed by wives and female relatives of jailed political dissidents in Cuba, is certainly cause for concern. And the fact that there's a guy that used to be a CIA agent that also supports that group, despite that there's no demonstrated connection between the former CIA agent and Assange's accuser, well, that kind of coincidence is just too much to dismiss.

Sweden has a well respected legal system, and the extradition is legal (i.e. apparently you needn't be facing charges to be extradited) so I don't really see how or why he should be exempt from the process.

Make that HAD. Between this and the sham that was the US pushing the Sweden Justice Minister for the Pirate Bay trial, Sweden Justice system is now a shadow of what it was.

And everybody should be exempt of that process. The EU extradition system is just stupid. Extradition without being charged for a crime, and what is more, a crime in Sweden that is not a crime in any other country (surprise rape?. really?) and with the obvious intention to extradite him from Sweden to the US to punish him for showing the world how the US government is torturing, murdering, etc?. What a joke.

He may be a douchebag, and an complete idiot for playing Casanova in the middle of the wikileaks scandal, but that doesn't make any of this right.

How would this compare with that? He is being extradited so he can face his charges and have guilt determined. That is the exact opposite of guilty until proven innocent.

So I accuse you of something with no proof whatsoever, and that's it?. You have to be extradited to my country to face your charges?.

Doesn't sound like innocent until proven guilty to me.

Oh, and everybody, just read what surprise rape means in sweden. His crime was fucking without a condom in one case, and fucking while her partner was sleeping in the other, which he denies (so it's his word against hers).

I don't like him, I think he's the worst possible spokesman wikileaks could have (appart from Daniel Domscheit-Berg, which would have been even worse), but that doesn't make all of this any less bullshit.

So what will you say when none of that happens because he's not a US citizen and did not break any US laws?

Yeah, like the laws have stopped the US from doing whatever the hell they wanted in the last 10 years.

Wake up.

Tinfoil hats aside...

As much as Assange has pissed off powerful people in the US, if there is one thing those same people care about, it's retaining political power. And even an idiot can see that trying to extradite Assange and all the crap that would bring up is a political and PR nightmare. Besides, the files have already been leaked, and it's not as if getting rid of one man would stop future leaks - there is always the several "competing" leak sites that have been started up.

So basically, as much as some people might dislike/hate him and want to punish him, there is very little actual chance of any official action on such a matter. It's a lose-lose scenario.

Listen, it's really this simple. And I know you guys don't want to think it's this simple, but it is:

Julian Assange stuck it in the crazy because he was horny and now it's biting him in the ass.

There's no big conspiracy, no major setup, no enormous plan to kill him at a CIA black site once he's extradited by a Swedish court to the US.

He just fucked a lady who has a real issue with men and she hit back against him because she does. Hell, this is step three or something of her list on how to destroy a man who has failed you. (She has one, it's on her blog.) I've known her since we were kids and she's a nice enough person as long as you don't talk about relationships. She's always fucked them up.

Julian Assange just happened to be world famous. And a horndog. And now he's getting fucked in the ass for it. It's probably complete bullshit, but there's no conspiracy.

What I don't understand is why Swedish investigators don't just question him in the UK. You could throw a rock from the UK to Sweden. It's like an hour and a half by plane. They could travel to the UK, question him, and be back before dinner! I obviously don't know if he is guilty or innocent, but he hasn't been charged with a crime.

Why is it necessary to extradite him to question him?

I know there are lots of conspiracy theories about the US wanting him and it being easier to extradite from Sweden, etc., etc. What I can't find from reading the various news articles is the "official" justification for extradition. Anyone?

From my understanding of law you don't have to be formally charged, only accused, with something to be wanted for questioning, and the judge seems to think the same thing: "as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution."

The status of the accusation could change to formal charge for crime(s) or be dropped depending on how the prosecutor and interprets his answers once he is being actually questioned.

A good write-up of the judgement is here, which might go some way to answering common questions that have come up e.g. how he can be extradited without being charged with a crime and the court's reasoning for not allowing him to answer questions over video link.

EDIT: Incidentally, can someone who thinks that this extradition to Sweden is part of a multi-step plan to extradite Assange to the US explain something to me - why orchestrate the extradition to Sweden at all? I doubt that it's harder to extradite to the US from Britain than from Sweden...

"Sweden has a well respected legal system, and the extradition is legal (i.e. apparently you needn't be facing charges to be extradited) so I don't really see how or why he should be exempt from the process."

Because it's a sham trial?!? He's going to be extradited to the US or sent to club Gitmo for embarrassing the Oligarch. Come on, this isn't even opaque, he's be persecuted not prosecuted and the whole world knows it.

So I guess you could care less if he actually sexually assaulted women or not....

So are you actually asking if he couldn't care less or are you saying he cares significantly about whether a woman was sexually assaulted? Because if it's the latter then I don't see where you arrived at that conclusion since he implied the charges upon Julian are cooked up.

So I guess you could care less if he actually sexually assaulted women or not....

So are you actually asking if he couldn't care less or are you saying he cares significantly about whether a woman was sexually assaulted? Because if it's the latter then I don't see where you arrived at that conclusion since he implied the charges upon Julian are cooked up.

He might not care significantly, he might just care some non-zero amount

A good write-up of the judgement is here, which might go some way to answering common questions that have come up e.g. how he can be extradited without being charged with a crime and the court's reasoning for not allowing him to answer questions over video link.

EDIT: Incidentally, can someone who thinks that this extradition to Sweden is part of a multi-step plan to extradite Assange to the US explain something to me - why orchestrate the extradition to Sweden at all? I doubt that it's harder to extradite to the US from Britain than from Sweden...

I have asked myself the same question as well. For all those who think that Assange may be extradited to USA from Sweden, would you consider this:

Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year. [...] Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. [...] Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

This is very similar to UK law, however United Kingdom has an extra treaty governing the extradition of people to and from USA called 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty under which people like Gary McKinnon; Babar Ahmad; Giles Darby, David Bermingham & Gary Mulgrew have all been actually extradited as a result of the law. Once the charges (espionage? what else?) on Assange are finalized by Pentagon, it would probably be easy to justify a similar treatment of Assange compared to these among others.

Then there is the fact that UK is a NATO member with deep ties to USA both in general military terms and in intelligence operations, they have almost always cooperated and while Sweden is NATO-friendly they are nowhere as deeply connected as UK. It seems to me as the British equivalent of Pentagon (GCHQ or Northwood I guess) would require much less coaxing to cooperate than the Swedish Headquarters.

Sweet tinfoil munching messiah, people. If the US were going to extradite the bugger, they'd get him from the UK, not Sweden! The UK --> US treaty is a joke. The US can have anyone for any reason. Sweden's extradition treaty with the US is a lot more through.

If the US wanted him, he'd have been easier to get from the UK!

Also: it doesn’t matter if the sexual assault/rape charges aren’t considered a crime in another country. They are a crime in Sweden, where he was when he and these girls got into it.

If you break the laws of a nation while on that nation’s soil, you must face that nation’s legal system. End of.

Incidentally, can someone who thinks that this extradition to Sweden is part of a multi-step plan to extradite Assange to the US explain something to me - why orchestrate the extradition to Sweden at all? I doubt that it's harder to extradite to the US from Britain than from Sweden...

I don't think it is a "plan to extradite". I think it is a plan to have him whacked or taken out of commission on a permanent basis and I believe the Brits would have been very, very pissed if it occurred on their turf. The status of main ally in the Coalition Of The Willing buys you some consideration in certain delicate matters. Sweden OTOH has been a PITA for the AAs and US diplomacy to be told «deliver him to us and we'll forget about your impertinent Pirate Party shiHt».